I opposed a gender quota - and was 100 per cent wrong

By Sam Crosby

At a McKell Institute board meeting in May, one of my fellow directors proposed we introduce a 50/50 gender quota for our board that we must reach within six months. I opposed it.

I'm not concerned about the pernicious creep of political correctness. I'm yet to be convinced feminism poses a grave threat to the foundations of Western civilisation. But I opposed the proposal on what I thought were decent, practical, and commonsense grounds.

The McKell Institute's Sam Crosby.

Photo: Janie Barrett

The existing board was well-credentialed and well-balanced and it had steered McKell from a fledgling start-up into one of the country’s most influential thinktanks in under a decade. I didn’t want to tell four of its members that despite their hard work, they had to step aside. Furthermore, I couldn’t immediately think of any women who would be available and suitable as replacements.

I also considered the gain not worth the pain of recruitment. McKell's directors work unpaid and our board is hardly a high-profile beacon to the rest of Australian society.

I was out-enthused. I now realise this was for the best. Because I was 100 per cent wrong.

McKell headquarters boasted no binders full of women waiting for the call. But that didn't mean they weren't out there. Whilst it's true I was able to think of more suitable men off the top of my head, this was purely because, like most people, I tend to socialise more with my own gender.

When the make-up of your board is heavily skewed towards men, there must be an explanation.

Photo: Erin Jonasson

A hard quota forced me to think, and look, a little harder. And the board we have now is every bit as strong as the one it succeeds. Which proves a 50/50 quota is possible.

When the make-up of your board is heavily skewed towards men, as McKell's was, there must be an explanation for the phenomenon.

Related Article

One, men are inherently better at being progressive thinktank directors than women.

Two, men are more interested in the work of progressive thinktanks than women.

Three, there has been unconscious bias at play that has advantaged men.

Or, four, there is a structural issue that has prevented women from being in the right position to be selected.

Now if you reject one and two because they’re nonsense, that leaves you with three and four. And while it’s uncomfortable to admit to unconscious bias, it’s better than being intellectually dishonest.

That's the thing about unconscious bias - it’s unconscious. People who are not remotely sexist can fall victim to it because humans naturally gravitate towards people that remind them of themselves.

In the modern world it means that the people who hold most positions of power — men – will gravitate towards other men. Men have enjoyed historical first-mover advantage on boards and they tend to self-replicate.

Julie Bishop appears to have changed her mind on quotas.

Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The only way to mitigate unconscious bias is through conscious and deliberate effort and I think this awkwardness is what a lot of people object to. But it’s the only way to do it. The alternative is to pretend we are objective judges, free from the genetic foibles that affect the rest of the human race.

Outfits with more diverse management perform better and deliver stronger performance for their members and shareholders. Corporate behemoths across the globe are swiftly introducing diversity policies. You can believe they're virtue signalling to a mysterious, politically correct mafia. But it’s more likely they’re trying to increase value for their investors.

Examine the results. Would anyone seriously argue the Coalition, through its “purist” approach to merit, has reaped the rewards through a talent advantage? It would be a brave conservative indeed who could consider the government’s male ranks today and insist the most meritorious talent had won out.

In an ideal world, the most talented people would get a fair shot and diversity would flow naturally. But we ain't there yet. The only way to get rid of the need for quotas is to introduce them.